Introduction – Murad Novruzov

[Murad Novruzov]

Dear colleagues at Ronin,

My name is Murad Novruzov, and I am very pleased to join this community.
I have experience in the field of information technology (about 10 years), and in recent years I have switched to medical sciences and biomedical research. I am currently studying Health Science at the University of the People (on a full scholarship) and working independently in the field of biology and medicine.

My main research activity is the development of practical biomedical protocols and structures that can be applied in real-world settings. I collaborate with a MD and two PhDs in related fields and am particularly interested in reproducibility, translational value, and building bridges between disciplines.

I look forward to exchanging ideas, sharing my current work, and exploring opportunities for collaboration.

Best Regards,
Murad Novruzov
ORCID: 0009-0007-2386-6332
Website: https://muradnovruzov.org

[Paola Di Maio]

Murad

thank you for your introduction

Cancer research is a priority, super interesting and super controversial, because..... there may be research and technology

available to prevent/revert cancer *in some cases at least to discuss alternative approaches to cancer prevention and cure

But pharmaceutical corporations and the scientific community AND research establishment form an aggressive front

to prevent/slow down research that does not feed into the corporate profits. Mobbing takes place to shut up anyone who may have anything to say on the subject

outside of the establishment control

This is why we are Independent Scholars

This culture of control may be one of the factors contributing to the systematic demolition of Independent Scholarship

So independent scholars and researchers face a triple challenge:

 [1] Make sure their work is scientifically rigorous and credible, backed by data and evidence

 [2] Make sure it is not systematically discredited  and taken down by the scientific establishment which is designed to prevent advancements from which it does not profit

[3] That it iss published, accepted, considered and trialled  and evaluated fairly

With these considerations in mind, I'd like to invite you to explain

a) what exactly does your approach to cancer research consist of, it seems experimental, I tried to understand a bit of what you do from your web pages, but cannot

decode the acronyms. Would you like to record a short lecture where you explain your work to scholars of other disciplines, in particulara plain language explanation of the terms you use and  the quality/evaluation criteria for the validity of your methods and results

b) the aims and goals of your work, and the challenges you face in putting across/publishing in conventional scholarly settings *hence the relevance to independent scholarship

c) How does your work along with worldwide oncology research and practice guidelines and good practices such as

https://www.worldwidecancerresearch.org/for-researchers/research-policies/

It would be great to reboot Ronin Institute scholarly discourse where it hurts the most

Look forward to be learning about this, and to be setting new models and standards for Independent Scholarship

*wearing flame retardant

Paola Di Maio

DISCLAIMER:  distribution of posts to this Google Group does not imply endorsement of methods and results described in the post

Interlude

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly6ZhQVnVow&list=RDLy6ZhQVnVow&start_radio=1

--
This discussion group is low traffic, and intended to serve polite informed and to the point discussions to a broad community of independent scholars on topics of general interest It is generally unmoderated, but may occasionally tuned to moderated when the list becomes overwhelmed . Please be mindful and aware that your message may be relevant only to few members *when accepting an invitation to a meeting or LT for example, send your replies and notifications only to the organisers rather than to the whole list. But if a post of general interest is not distributed within 48 hours or so, either the moderators are away, or it was caught by some filter. Please alert the managers. Keep in touch with others also using other channels
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship (General Partnership)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ronin-scholar...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ronin-scholars/9c0f2db0-dd4a-42c9-8a04-0346d86b7cd1n%40googlegroups.com.

[Murad Novruzov]

Dear Paola,

Thank you for raising these important points about independent scholarship and the challenges of cancer research.

My current work is focused on a preclinical systems framework called "Second Breath: Systems-Level Model of Localized Immune Cascade Programming in Desmoplastic Tumors (In Silico-Validated, Literature-Anchored)" https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/85507. It is designed for desmoplastic, immune‑cold tumors that typically resist checkpoint inhibitors. The concept is to use a strictly localized, stepwise intratumoral cascade: first priming innate immunity (via PRR activation), then reinforcing the Th1 axis with micro‑dosed cytokines, carefully modulating the extracellular matrix to reduce barriers, and finally introducing effector cells and checkpoint sensitization. Each stage is biomarker‑gated with predefined go/no‑go criteria to ensure reproducibility and safety. The aim is to convert “cold” tumors into responsive ones while minimizing systemic toxicity.

This approach has a conceptual kinship with the localized and intratumoral strategies explored by Jason Williams, MD, who also emphasized the value of direct tumor‑site interventions. However, there are important differences:  
- Williams’ method is primarily a clinical practice model, based on direct intratumoral injections and empirical combinations.  
- "Second Breath" is a systems‑level research framework, not a clinical protocol: it is preclinical, in silico‑validated, and explicitly anchored in published in vitro/in vivo evidence.  
- Unlike Williams’ approach, "Second Breath" introduces biomarker‑gated transitions and go/no‑go criteria, making the cascade reproducible and testable across settings.  
- It is designed as a generalizable architecture that can be adapted and validated step by step, rather than a set of procedures applied case by case.

We also managed to find partners in Belarus who agreed to conduct in vitro and in vivo analyses for co-authorship for a virtually symbolic fee. "Second Breath" is a direct derivative of our broader therapeutic framework, "Cascade Medicine", which provides the systemic architecture for designing such multi‑phase interventions: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17184972

I would be glad to prepare a short plain‑language lecture for the group, where I can walk through this cascade logic, explain the terms, and discuss how it aligns with international oncology research guidelines. I also welcome critical discussion and collaboration on how independent scholars can advance such ideas despite the barriers you mentioned.

Best regards,  
Murad Novruzov  
ORCID: 0009-0007-2386-6332  

вторник, 28 октября 2025 г. в 11:19:38 UTC+4, Paola Di Maio: